1920-06-02

OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FOURTH SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 10-11 GEORGE V, 1920 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1034	Volume II: Pages 1035-2002


Volume III:: Pages 2003-3078	Volume IV: Pages 3079-4017


Volume V:: Pages 4019-4591



VOLUME CXLIV

[Stage Direction]
COMPRISING} THE PERIOD PROM THE SECOND DAY OP JUNE TO THE TWENTY-SECOND DAY OP JUNE, 1920, INCLUSIVE.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
V	1920

[Stage Direction]
House of Commons Hcfaates
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 2, 1920.

[Stage Direction]
Number of persons employed in the Department of the Interior.-Hon. Mr. Sifton.
Number of dismissals from the Civil Service made in the cities of the Dominion since first January, 1915.-Hon. Mr. Sifton.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BROUILLARD:: 1.	Including the amount paid for the labour and the materials that entered into its construction, and the removal, what was the total cost of the scaffolding erected along the entire front of the old Parliament Building in April, May and June, 1916, prior to taking down the walls and tower?
2.	Does the total cost of the said scaffolding
form part of the cost of the new Parliament Building?
3.	What became of the lumber of which the said scaffolding was built?


Hon. Mr. REID:: 1.	Lumber, $4,241.84; bolts and nails, $512.45; labour, $5,199.75; total, $9,954.04.
2.	Yes.
3.	Lumber to the value of $553.77 was sold to the Military Hospitals Commission for their building. The remainder has been put into use for general scaffolding, shoring, bracing, etc., during the erection of the new building. The smaller timbers and planks are used up but the larger timbers are still in use.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-COST OF ENGINE REPAIRS.
Mr. GAUVREAU:: Is the Government or the Minister of Railways aware that the amount for repairing an engine at the Canadian National Railways shops, St. Malo, Quebec, is five times higher than it was at the Riviere-du-Loup shops, before the machines of the latter were transferred) to St. Malo?


Hon. Mr. REID:: Neither the Government nor the Minister of Railways has any such information.
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PAPERS. Mr. BOURASSA:
For a copy of all papers, documents, telegrams and reports concerning the indemnity paid to the widow and the children of J. L. A. Forbes, killed at Aston Junction, the 11th of September, 1918, while on duty as brakeman on the Government railways.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

Mr. HOCKEN:: 1.	How many members of the staff of the House of Commons are French?
2.	How many of the House of Commons staff are English speaking?
3.	What proportion of the total salaries is paid to the French officials?
4.	What proportion of the salaries is paid to the English-speaking officials?


Mr. PREVOST:: 1.	What was the total number of chief clerkships on the House of Commons staff in the year 1909?
2.	How many of these chief clerkships were held respectively by English-speaking and French-speaking officials in the same year, and what were the names and titles of each chief clerk?
3.	How many chief clerkships are held today by English-speaking and French-speaking officials respectively, and what are the names and duties of such chief clerks on the said staff of the House of Commons?
4.	What is the present salary of each chief clerk of the said staff, and what was the salary of each in 1918?


Mr. TOBIN:: 1.	How many chiefs of branches are there on the staff of the House of Commons?
2.	How many of them are French?
3.	How many of them are English-speaking?
4.	What is the total of the annual salaries paid to those who are French-speaking?
5.	What is the total of the annual salaries paid to those who are English-speaking?


Mr. BUREAU:: 1.	How many pages are on the staff of the House of Commons?
2.	What is the name, address, and the ago of the page in each case?



3.	Is there any (a) minimum, (b) maximum age of employment?
4.	Is any provision made for pa| 5S under the age of 14 years attending day school? If not, why not?
4.	Have the services of any pages been dispensed with during the present session of Parliament? If so, what is (a) the name, (b) the age of the pages in each case?
6.	What are the working hours of pages employed by the House of Commons?
7.	Which, if any, of the pages employed by the House of Commons are the sons of men who saw active service in the recent war with Germany?



SITTINGS OP THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime
Minister) moved:
That on and after Friday the 4th instant and until the end of the present session the House shall meet at two o'clock in the afternoon of each day.
He said:	I have conferred with my
hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and with the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) in regard to the disposition of the notice which stands on the Order Paper. I have also endeavoured to ascertain the views of hon. members generally throughout the House and I understand that the motion in the form which I now propose will be acceptable.
Mr. BUREAU:: Does that include Saturdays?	.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: No, not Saturdays. As far as Saturdays are concerned, I propose to leave that question in abeyance at present until we have made progress with the Budget and until it is more apparent as to what programme it will be possible to deal with at the present session.


Mr. FIELDING:: That will apply also to Monday?


Jacques Bureau: It says " each day."


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday the 2nd day of June, it do stand adjourned until Friday, the 4th day of June.
He said:	My personal view, as I explained at the time, was that we might very well have sat on the 24th May and the 3rd June. However, in deference to what seemed to be the general view of hon. members,

the House stood adjourned over the 24th of May. Under the circumstances it seemed to me that our action might be misunderstood if we did not adjourn over to-morrow. There is the fact also that hon. members had a somewhat protracted session yesterday and I dare say some will desire to make amends.


Jacques Bureau: Oh no; we are young.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend is anxious to sit to-morrow, I see.


Jacques Bureau: No, no; I do not wish
to assume any blame for that.


Mr. BELAND:: But he disclaims any
fatigue.


Robert Laird Borden: I am sorry that we are not all so young and energetic as he is. However, I present the motion in that form.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. PIUS MICHAUD (Restigouche and Madawaska):: I wish to ask if the Government is aware of the great catastrophe that took place yesterday at Theriault Settlement and St. Quentin in my own constituency. There are sixty-five families homeless; there is a million dollar loss of property and I understand that under these circumstances the Government might come to the assistance of these poor, unfortunate people.


Robert Laird Borden: The unfortunate disaster to which my hon. friend has alluded has been made known to the Government through the press, not otherwise. There have been like disasters, I believe, in other parts of the country through forest fires. However, the subject has not been considered by the Government. We will take it into consideration, perhaps, within a day or two, but I would like to remind my hon. friend that assistance in the case oif disasters oif this kind might possibly come more particularly within the sphere of activity of the Provincial Governments.



CANADIAN MINISTER PLENIPOTENTIARY AT WASHINGTON.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve):: I have not the despatch under my hand, but I read in this morning's Citizen

that in the Imperial House yesterday the question of the appointment of a Canadian Ambassador at Washington was raised, and that one of the members of the Imperial Cabinet declined to give the information sought by two members of the House. The reason alleged in this despatch for the refusal of the Imperial Government to speak on this question is, that it has been understood that the correspondence between the Imperial and Dominion authorities should be kept confidential. I give at first hand the substance of the despatch in question, and I would ask the Prime Minister to inform the House if this correspondence is to remain permanently confidential or whether some day we might know why such correspondence has been exchanged and the reasons for the secrecy.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to say that a time will not arrive at some date in the future when the correspondence can be brought down, but I repeat what I have already stated; that according to my judgment it is not desirable in the public interest to bring it down at present. As to the answer which was given in the British House of Commons my attention has not been directed to it. My understanding is that the Imperial Government takes precisely the same view, as to bringing down the correspondence, as was announced to this House by the Canadian Government.


William Stevens Fielding: The despatch in question rather intimated, without saying so specifically, that the correspondence has been withheld at the request of the Canadian Government. The inference drawn from reading the despatch is that the Imperial Government would be quite willing to bring down the correspondence, but in deference to the Canadian Government they do not feel free to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: Any impression of that kind is incorrect.



OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUG ACT AMENDMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. NEWTON W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved the second reading of amendments made by the Senate to Bill 20 to amend the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain.


Mr. ROWELL:: The amendments are
purely formal. I do not think they alter the meaning of the Act as it now stands 196i
in any respect, but it may be that they make the meaning a little clearer. There is no objection to them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of
Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 131, (from the Senate) to amend the Criminal Code (French version).
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain the nature of the amendments which have <been suggested. They are to correct clerical errors, are they not?


Mr. DOHERTY:: Yes, purely and simply to correct errors of translation. There are quite a number of them but I understand they have been carefully gone over by the officers of the House.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee on the Bill.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section two-French version amended.


William Stevens Fielding: The serious feature
about these amendments is the reflection that is cast upon the translation in so important a matter as a statute of Canada. I should think that is the gravest aspect of the matter. Without knowing very much about it, I should think it a subject that calls for the very serious consideration of the Government and of Parliament.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think the gravity of the matter can be exaggerated, but these errors go back to the time of the printing of the Revised Statutes in 1906. Attention was recently called to a few errors with the result that it was thought desirable to have a careful examination made to see if we could not, once for all, get this translation correct. There is no question at all of the gravity of the matter, but the responsibility rests upon whoever was responsible for the translation, in 1906 I think it was, at the time the Revised Statutes were translated. I made some inquiry on the subject and the explanation given to me was that at that time the work was practically entirely in the hands of one man. That work is not of a simple character. Anybody who has ever attempted translation of this character, I think I may safely say, no matter how familiar he is with the two languages, will realize there is nothing more difficult than getting an exact translation; and sometimes when the

translation of laws is made by men who have not the requisite professional knowledge they have greater difficulty I think, in apprehending and rendering the exact meaning. I quite agree that this is a serious matter. I have called attention to the gravity of the question, and I believe that at the present time a .committee composed of members of both Houses is considering the whole subject of the translating staff, and of any improvements that may be made in the system.


Jacques Bureau: I notice on looking over the Bill that some of these corrections are not errors of translation; for instance, the first clause of section 3, in which we are asked to insert the word "et" before the word "d'une"; that must be an error by the proof-reader. Then section 10 is to be repealed by substituting another section. I have not read the French version of the section, but by repealing the old section and substituting a new section I cannot see that we are correcting any errors of translation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are repealing the existing French translation and substituting a correct translation. Perhaps it sounds peculiar to state it in that way, but we are letting the English version stand. The English and French versions are tooth equally the law, but here we find one version is perfectly correct, while the other is not. The only method, it seems to me, by which we can make it clear is to strike out the incorrect and substitute the correct, and in that sense it is a matter of translation, as is also the first amendment the hon, gentleman (Mr. Bureau) mentions, in that the English version contains the word "and," while the "et" is missing in the French version. I understand that in validating the Revised Statutes the usual practice was departed from, and they were passed in English, then translated and a statute enacted making the translation law. It was certainly an extraordinary way to deal with laws that ought to be passed concurrently in tooth languages. But, as I have said, those who were in control at the time-I do not know whether my hon. friend had any share in that control-must be responsible for that departure from the established practice.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was a member of the Government at the time the statutes were revised, and I remember that the French translation did not come in force at exactly the same time as the English version.

Probably my right hon. friend will remember that Sir Alan Aylesworth,-who was then Minister of Justice,-had to introduce special legislation in order to meet the general law which makes it obligatory that both versions should come into force concurrently. The translation of the Revised Statutes was entrusted to a well-known lawyer, the late Mr. Horace St. Louis, of whose ability there can be no question. He was absolutely proficient in both languages, and at the time no better man could have been selected for that work. It is quite possible, however, that as there are certain differences between the British Criminal Code and the French. Mr. St. Louis may have used expressions taken from the French Code Criminel which have no place in our Criminal Code. In glancing at the Bill I notice that there are many omissions which are rather in the nature of printers' or proof-readers' errors, and I see very few words or expressions which would indicate that the translation was poorly made. On the contrary, I think the translation appears to have been made as perfectly as possible, and I would like at once to remove the doubt cast by my hon. friend from Shelburne and Queen's (Mr. Fielding) on the ability of the translator. On the whole I think the sooner we correct these errors the better for our practitioners.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not wish to contradict anything that my hon. friend from Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) has said. There may have been a number of omissions and errors in the printing, but we find from the Bill before us that about 300 corrections have to be made. I do not for one moment question the competence in French of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, but I want to ask him if his translation is found to-day to be wanting to the extent this Bill would indicate, how is he satisfied that the translation of the clauses referred to is now perfect when it was previously imperfect? In other words, what is the composition of the Board of Translators that has passed judgment upon these amendments? The moment the minister declares that he is satisfied and gives the House satisfactory assurance as to the competence of the Board of Translators, I do not think we should go over every item.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend from Maisonneuve gathered from what I said that I had any desire to reflect on any individual translator, I can assure him that that was not my intention. I do not know who the translators were, and from my lim-

ited knowledge of French I should hesitate to speak on the subject, but I know enough of the difficulties of translation to appreciate them, and my only thought was to convey to the minister and the Government the importance of a correct translation, especially in regard to our statutes. A correct translation is important in relation to all our documents, but when we come to the law of the country and find after a lapse of years that there have been "printers' errors"-and it is very easy to blame the printer or the proof-reader-it seems to me that we ought to realize the importance of having skilled and capable men as translators, and if we have been lax in that respect in the past, by all means let us elevate the standard of the men we engage for this work, which is one of the highest classes of work in our public service.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I said, I fully agree with everything .that can be urged in regard to the importance of having correct translations. It was a matter of alarm to me when my attention was first called to this large number of errors, and I have done my best to impress upon the law officer looking after this work the importance of getting these amendments correct now. As I said, I understand there is at present a joint committee of both Houses considering the question of the organization of the translation staff. I do not know how far they have proceeded, but I do hope that they will give the most serious consideration to the importance of having this translation work properly done. I am not in a position to give to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Beland) the name of the translator or translators who made this revision. But I did impress upon the Parliamentary Counsel, from whom I can obtain the name without difficulty, the importance oif getting the best talent available, and above all-because I think it is more a question of care than a question of ability -that he should impress upon those doing the work the importance of doing it carefully.


Mr. JACOBS:: 
Charles Joseph Doherty: The English words corresponding to these words that are now sought to be inserted in the French version are in the English version; therefore all we are doing is making the French version correspond with the English. As to what guarantee we can have that these changes are correctly made, there are two ways by which we may be assured: either by relying upon those officers who have done the work, or by taking up the English version and comparing these enactments with it. Tnat of course, would be a somewhat tedious work for the committee to undertake


Jacques Bureau: The change in section 829 would seem to make the thing worse. The English version says:	"If one of two or
more." The present French translation says: "Si un prevenu, sur deux ou plus.'t You are going to strike that out and substitute the words : "Si deux ou plus de deux prisonniers."


Henri Sévérin Béland: Has it occurred to the minister that this Bill should be submitted to a small Committee of the House over which the minister might preside? We have on this side a number of eminent lawyers who are fully conversant with both languages. It would not take them more than two hours to go over these different items or clauses and see if the translation is proper, whereas if we take the Bill up clause by clause in the Committee of the Whole, it may take us two or three days to deal with it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am prepared to welcome the co-operation of such hon. members as my hon. friend has referred to, who may be willing to undertake this work. In view of the suggestion that has been made, and in order that we may be in a position to carry it out, I move that the committee rise, Teport progress and ask leave to sit again.


Mr. DENIS:: Before the committee rises I have an observation to make. I do not want to cast blame on anybody, but it seems extraordinary that all these mistakes should have been made, either in the translation or in the correction of proof. For instance, if we look at the changes proposed

in section 129, iwe find that it is proposed to substitute the word "quatorze" for the word "sept." Well, how in God's world could a translator mate the mistake of using the word "quatorze" instead of the word "sept?" It is no easy task to translate laws. Those who have some knowledge of two or more languages.knorw of the enormous. difficulties that are met with in the translation of laws or speeches or anything else. We have had what I might call a world example in the translation of the Peace Treaty. Complaints were made at the Peace Conference that the Treaty was not properly translated, although the services of the best experts in the world had been obtained to translate that Treaty. Of course, we may easily come to the conclusion that a translation is very far from perfect without casting blame on anybody, but this particular case brings us to the consideration of a much wider question, and it is this: If so many mistakes have been made in the translation of the Criminal Code, a statute that is referred to every day-and probably it was because of that that the mistakes were discovered-what other mistakes must there be in the translation of other laws? If we come to the conclusion that there must be many other mistakes in the translation of other statutes, then the French versions of our laws are very undependable and very uncertain. This is certainly a very serious state of affairs. In my practice I have seen lawyers use either the French or the English version, according to which best suited their purpose; the Minister of Justice, having been a judge, probably knows something about that. That there was a difference between the two versions was apparent. Of course, there is always the guiding principle -if it is a guiding principle-that when a law is originally written in only one language we should refer to the original in order to find out what its intent was. But it is a serious state of affairs when in the translation of a single law there are over three hundred mistakes, the correction of which now has to be made. 1 am simply suggesting that the Government should adopt some method of ensuring that all our laws are correct, or should appoint some one to supervise the laws as they go through, so that something may be done in order to remedy this inconvenience, because I .am quite sure that if we set translators to work on some other law, next session .a new Bill will have to be introduced in order to correct discrepancies.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am very much afraid the hon. member is correct in his conten-

tion. Might I suggest to him a very simple way by which the recurrence of this might be avoided? This was an exceptional case in which the law was passed in one language and subsequently translated; but with that exception all laws that come before Parliament do .so in both languages. If hon. gentlemen who are perfectly familiar with the French language would have before them, as the Bills are being passed, the French version as well as the English, and would keep an eye on the French version, it would be .a very simple matter to see that they both correspond. In that way we would have the matter controlled by this House and we would not be dependent on the greater or less degree of carefulness on the part of translators. Strictly speaking, that would be the proper way of passing the laws, although I do not want to suggest that every hon. member should be reading the two versions. I make that suggestion as .a remedy which I think would be an effective one. In the meantime, perhaps the committee which we are going to form to go over this Bill might profit by that occasion to talk over what means might be found to guard in the future against the recurrence of this serious defect.


William Stevens Fielding: Might I ask, just as a matter of curiosity, not by way of criticism, by what process the conclusion is reached that the English version is right and the French version is wrong? Are we not bound to assume that both languages are equal before the Parliament of Canada? Somebody might say: You are all wrong; the French version is right; what you want to do is to correct the English version.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is quite possible that there might be an error in the English rather than in the French version; but as regards this particular law, we are in a position to know that the English version was the only version scrutinized by Parliament and that in this instance the French version .is a translation. I am not at all prepared to say that a court would exercise a preference as between one language and the other; the court would have no proof by which it could assume that one language was the original language. If you take this instance to which attention was called, the difference between the two versions is this, that the English version says that a man shall be liable to a sentence of fourteen years, while the French version says that he shall be liable to a sentence of seven years. Speaking offhand, I would think that it would be the duty of any judge to

apply that version which makes the penalty the least, because he ought to have no doubt in his mind that the man is liable to the penalty which he imposes.


Jacques Bureau: Would the court not take the language in which the Bill was drafted and introduced in preference to the other'


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not, think it is usual for courts to hear testimony as to proceedings that took place when a law was going through Parliament. The law arrives at the court as the law, and I do not think the court would be justified'in hearing such testimony. Hon, gentlemen will remember that in Quebec we have rules laid down for the guidance of the court in the event of there being found differences between the twa versions. I think if my memory serve? me right, the over-riding rule is that the judge is to adopt that version which is most in accordance with the general principles that govern the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) moved the second reading of Bill No. 141, respecting the Canadian National railways.
William Stevens Fielding: Was that on the list of Bills which my right hom. friend gave to the House last night? My recollection is that it was not.


Robert Laird Borden: No. I will not take it up if there is any objection-


William Stevens Fielding: I am not objecting.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Railways informed me that he proposed having the Bill read ,a second time and then having it referred to the Railway Committee.	,


John Dowsley Reid: My intention is simply to have the Bill referred to the Railway Committee.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the purpose of this Bill is to provide for the extension of several branches of the Government railways in the West?


John Dowsley Reid: Three short extensions of lines now owned by the Canadian National railways. When we require a new charter or an extension, we must come to Parliament and go through the usual process just ,as if this were the Canadian Pacific or any other private railway. We are asking for three extensions, and I wish ta
refer the matter to the Railway Committee in the ordinary way.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend knows that these days we are constantly talking of economy. 'If it was the declared policy of the Government not to make any such extensions, I should hesitate before asking for any extension in the East. But if we are to provide for some extensions of the Natioral system in the West- and I assume these are justifiable extensions-it is not unreasonable that we should consider claims that may arise in the East. I have had brought to my notice and wish to bring before Parliament the claim of the town of Lockeport, in the county of Shelburne, a very important fishing district in Nova Scotia, about three miles from the railway. That is to say, what is known as the Halifax and South Western railway, part of the Government system touches the water of Lockeport harbour, but is three miles away from the town. Communication is by a f rry boat, and that is very unsatisfactory but, of course, better than nothing. There is a growing feeling there that this large town, which is incorporated, ought to have more immediate connection with the railway, and it is not surprising that the people of that district desire that facility. Every day we ,are realizing that more attention should be given to the fisheries of the Dominion as a source of food supply. This is one of the districts in which the fishing business is pre-eminent. It is growing in importance all the time, and the desire of the people that they should have direct communication with the railways, instead of having to take their freight three miles away either by road or ferry boat, is a very reasonable one. I think representations have been made to President Hanna at Toronto, and I would ask my hon. friend to communicate with the department with reference to this matter. I desire to urge on the minister that if our finan-
4 p.m. cial condition was such that we could not provide for railway extensions in any part of the country, I would hesitate to bring this matter to the attention of the Government, but if we are to provide some extensions in the West it is only rational and reasonable that a moderate expenditure of an urgent character in the East should also be considered. It is a new question to my hon. friend, I have no doubt, but I should be glad if he would investigate and see if something cannot be done to give these people the small advantage of what is no more than a siding of about three miles.

(Mr. J. D. REID: This is the first time I have heard of the matter. I agree that if any great number of extensions are to be made in the West, the East should also be considered equally. I will take this matter up with the management of the Canadian National railways and see if the wishes of the people in that locality can be met.
Mr. BElLAND: May I ask a question of the Minister of Railways?
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER [DOT] It would only be by unanimous consent that the Minister of Railways could answer, as he has already exhausted his right to speak.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We all consent.


Jacques Bureau: Hear, hear.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understood a few days ago that the House was to be supplied with a report of the operation of the Canadian National railways. I have received a copy of one report but it deals only with the operations of the Canadian Northern railway. Under what head can we find information respecting the operation of the Intercolonial, for instance? The Intercolonial is a part of the Canadian National Railway system, but I can find no reference to its operations in the report that has been laid on the Table.


John Dowsley Reid: The report on the operations of the Intercolonial is generally given by the minister when his Estimates are before the House. Then there are the usual statements in the report of the Minister of Railways. If any information is desired beyond what is contained in those statements, I shall be glad to give it when my Estimates are before the committee.


Jacques Bureau: That applies also to the Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canale, and Telegraph Lines.


[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 136, to amend The Railway Act, 1919, was read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines.
TMr. Fielding.]

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) (Bill No. 139, to amend the Admiralty Act, was read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the 'Chair:
On section 1-appointment of deputy judges:
Jacques Bureau: Does this mean that the Governor in Council or local judge in Admiralty may appoint a deputy judge even if the judge is still in office?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No. Regularly speaking, unless you have an officer you cannot have a deputy of that officer. The deputy judge is the deputy of an existing judge. This amendment is to prevent it happening that the deputy, because the judge dies or his office otherwise becomes vacant, shall cease to have power to act.


William Stevens Fielding: How would that apply to a deputy minister?


Jacques Bureau: "Le roi est mort, vive
le roi!" The king never dies, nor do ministers. They may walk out of office, but few die.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There is nothing in the Bill as to the class of persons from whom the deputy would be selected, although, of course, it is well understood what the qualifications of the deputy judge should be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not in my hand at the moment the provisions which determine what shall 'be the qualifications, but there is nothing new in this except the empowering of the Governor in Council or local judge in Admiralty to appoint a deputy judge when the judge's oflice for one reason or another becomes vacant. The qualifications are not altered in any way by this.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ARTHUR MBIGHEN (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 124 (from the Senate), to amend The Employment Offices Go-Ordination Act.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Explain.


Mr MEIGHEN:: I explained this Bill
on its introduction. It is to enable the minister to make the grant provided for by the former Act, in the case of institutions carried on by municipalities, -where the provinces decline to avail themselves of the Act.


Jacques Bureau: This applies to Nova
Scotia and New Brunswick alone?
IMr. M EIGHEN:	And Prince Edward
Island.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This Act was assented to on May 24, 1918. The Act required that any assistance that was given to carry out its purposes and to encourage the co-ordination of employment offices, should be given to the provinces in accordance with its provisions. The Act made no mention of any assistance being given in any other way. I was very much surprised to find that, notwithstanding the legislation which has been enacted in that form, the Government, by Order in Council, have undertaken to give a much wider construction to it than that which Parliament placed upon it. I have in my hand a copy of Order in Council No. 3171, assented to on the 24th day of December, 1918, in which I find the following paragraph:
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, under and in virtue of the provisions of the Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, is pleased to order and' it is hereby ordered as follows:
(a)	The Minister of Labour may establish and maintain for a period of eighteen months from January 1, 1919, such employment bureaus as may be necessary, and not established under the provisions of the Employment Offices Coordination Act.
(b)	The Minister of Labour may establish and maintain offices at such points as he may deem necessary, provided the municipality supply office space and equipment required.
, There is an Order in Council that distinctly gives power to the Government in regard to a matter on which this Parliament has legislated and these powers are completely beyond those that are granted by statute. I hope, when the minister refers to this matter in committee, he will have some satisfactory explanation to give to Parliament on the subject. It is perfectly plain how the money to be appropriated for the purpose of carrying out this Act was to be expended. Section 5 reads:
The moneys appropriated for each year shall be allotted and paid to the governments of the respective provinces in the proportion which their expenditure for the maintenance of employment offices bears to the total of the expenditures of all the provinces for such purposes, but in no case shall the allotment to any
province exceed one half the amount expended for the maintenance of employment offices by such province.
The moneys were to be appropriated and paid to the governments of the respective . provinces. That is what Parliament said. Parliament said nothing about authorizing payments to or for municipalities. Parliament said nothing about giving the minister power to establish offices under Order in Council as might suit himself. This is a very serious departure from what can be considered at all right and proper in view olf the statute as it has been enacted by Parliament. Further, section 6 of the Act says:
The payments hereinbefore authorized shall as to each province, be conditional upon agreement between the minister and the government of the province.
. This Order in Council says:
The Minister of Labour may establish and maintain offices at such points as he may deem necessary, provided the municipality supply office space and equipment required.
There is no reference to the Government of the province at all, the clause simply empowers the minister to make any arrangement he pleases with individual municipalities. But that is not all. There is, it seems to me, another flagrant violation of the practice and rights of Parliament, in another Order in Council which was passed on the 12th of March, 1919, in relation to the very same matter. I have a copy of the Order in Council in my hand. It is No. 537 and it was assented to on the 12th March,
1919.	1 find that the last part of the Order in Council is as follows:
The minister therefore, recommends that an amount estimated at $3'0,000 be placed to the credit of the Department of Labour from the War Appropriation for the purposes of making subventions to various provinces on the basis stated, the said sum of $3'0,000' being over and above the appropriation of $60,000 named in the statute for the fiscal year 1918-19.
Here is another most important departure. The statute itself fixed the amount which Parliament authorized the Department of Labour to pay. Clearly, in fixing that amount, Parliament intended to place a limit upon the extravagance of the Government in the matter of the establishment of these employment offices and assisting other employment offices which were established. Notwithstanding that legislation is before the ministry they pay no heed whatever to the law but take public moneys that have been appropriated for one purpose and use them for an entirely different purpose. We have had so many instances of this kind of indifference to Parliament and the legisla-

tion of Parliament that the time has come when a halt should be called to further proceedings of this kind by the Government. I repeat that I hope the minister will have some explanation to give to the House when the Bill gets into committee. I would just draw the attention of the House and the country to the fact that here is one more of the many instances that have been quoted this session, first, where legislation passed by Parliament has been absolutely ignored and the Government has taken action entirely beyond the scope of that legislation and, second, where moneys appropriated for a particular purpose have been used by the Governor in Council for an entirely different purpose notwithstanding that Parliament has placed a restriction upon the amount of public money which should be spent in a particular direction.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-definition:
Mr. MEIGHEN:: I was not able, having .moved the second reading, to reply to the leader of the Opposition. I should not let the occasion pass without saying something about his solicitude for the Government. His great care is that we do not exceed the legal bounds of our authority. I did not have ply attention drawn to the Orders in Council he read to the House, or the portions which he read, but just sitting and listening to them and looking at the Act itself, I was not struct by any conflict between the terms of the Order in Council and the wording of the Act. Nor do I see any reason at all to believe that the terms of the order in the least degree exceed the powers given to the Governor in Council by the Act. Referring to the first one, if I got it rightly- I would be glad indeed to have the copy sent across-it provided that, by means of regulation, the Minister of Labour might grant assistance to the support of an employment office in cases where the office and, I think, the help were provided by the municipality. The Order in Council says:
The Minister of Labour may establish and maintain offices at such points as he may deem necessary, provided the municipality supply office space and equipment required.
Now section three Of the Act reads as follows:
The minister is authorized and empowered,-
(a)	to aid and encourage the organization and co-ordination of employment offices and to promote uniformity of methods among them ;
(b)	to establish one or more clearing houses for the interchange of information between em-

ployment offices concerning the transfer of labour and other matters ;
(c)	to compile and distribute information received from employment offices and from other sources, regarding prevailing conditions of employment.
Now iby Jsection 10 the minister may make any regulations, not inconsistent with the Act, which he may deem necessary to carry this Act into effect, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. That is to say the Governor in Council may make regulations. Consequently the Governor in Council may make regulations to aid in the organization and co-OTdination of employment offices. Now the Governor in Council in pursuance of that does what? It passes a regulation that the minister may establish and maintain offices at such points as he may deem necessary-really the same meaning as the first clause-provided the municipality grants the office space and equipment required. Where does that exceed the hounds of clause (a) defining what the minister is empowered to do? The following clauses provide that the minister may as well, from a special appropriation provided by the Act, pay certain moneys to the provinces according to a certain rule and proportion. That is one power. Clause three contains another power that the minister evidently acted upon. There appears to be another Order in Council of the 18th December, 1918. The second Order in Council to which the leader of the Opposition refers contains a provision appropriating:
$30,000 from the War Appropriation for the purpose of making subventions to various provinces on the basis stated, the said sum of $30,000 being over and above the appropriation of $50,000 named in the statute.
The statute was one providing an appropriation for certain well-defined purposes. It has no special relation to soldiers' demobilization or to the war at ail-it is permanent in its character. This appropriation, which evidently came in March, 1919, the very time when most of the men were returning, was an appropriation designed to take care especially of returned men and to make special efforts under the provision of the Act, and also under the powers given the Governor in Council under 'the terms of the War Appropriation Act itself, to place returned men in suitable employment as soon as possible. I have not under my hand the terms of the War Appropriation Act, but I have not the faintest doubt, that the Governor in Council was clearly authorized by Parliament to make an appropriation just for

that purpose because the wording of the Act was very wide, and necessarily very wide, and I do not know what better use could be made of the war appropriation moneys than to facilitate the early absorption into useful employment of the returned men. But it is not under the authority of this Act, it is under the authority off the War Appropriation Act as I would understand from a hurried reading, that the second Order in Council was passed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister says he sees nothing inconsistent with the terms of the Act in the course which the Government has taken in passing an Order in Council which allows the payment of moneys under this Act to municipalities when the whole purpose of the Act is to restrict payments to the Governments oi the different provinces.


Arthur Meighen: To restrict?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does the minister think that it is consistent, when the Act states that the money should be paid to the governments of the provinces, to pay that money to the municipalities when the provinces refuse to cooperate? As I understand, what happened was this: Several of the provinces undertook to co-operate with the Dominion Government in the matter of these employment offices and to meet half of the expense, but the Governments of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island decided that they would not open employment offices. On the other hand there were a few municipalities that had such offices, and the Government took authority on its own account by Order in Council to pay this money to the municipalities, not to pay it to the Provincial Governments. Now there may be reasons on the ground of meeting an emergency, or some sort of expediency, which would justify that, but when the minister says there is nothing inconsistent in using the moneys which had been voted by this Parliament to be paid only to governments, and paying them over to municipalities-


Arthur Meighen: Where does it say that the money shall be paid to municipalities?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what was done with the money.


Arthur Meighen: No, why do you say
that? Bead it.


Jacques Bureau: Isn't it the object to make an agreement with the municipalities?


Arthur Meighen: The object of the amendment to this Bill is, but not the Order in Council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Order in Council provides:
The Minister of Labour may establish and maintain offices at such points as he may deem necessary


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -provided the municipality supply office space and equipment required.


Arthur Meighen: That is not supplying
any money to the municipality.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But that is
exactly what was done. The money was not paid to the provinces but to the municipalities.


Arthur Meighen: How do you make that out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can the minister point to anything in the record which will show that the money has gone to the provinces?


Arthur Meighen: It does not go to either. The minister maintains the office. No money goes to the provinces or to the municipality under that order. The minister maintains the office, but he is not allowed to maintain it unless the municipality provides the office. The municipality does that out of its own funds, and if it does, then the minister maintains the office under the powers given by section 3 that I have just read.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the minister, instead of trying to argue this matter on grounds that are indefensible, and trying to put things over the committee, would take the trouble to look at the Act he would not waste our time in the sort of casuistry he is resorting to. Section 2 of the Act provides as follows:
In this Act and in any regulation made thereunder, unless the context otherwise requires- " employment office operated by any Provincial Government."

The whole Act relates to employment offices operated by Provincial Governments. The whole purpose of the Act, when it was passed, was to co-operate with Provincial Governments, and if the minister will take the trouble to read the debates that took place in Parliament at the time he will see that the ground on which the money was appropriated was that it was to be in cooperation with the provinces. Not one word was said as to assisting employment offices in different municipalities. If the minister's present interpretation is correct, why does he come to Parliament at the present time and ask for any amendment to the Act? What is the amendment for which he is asking? He is asking .that we change the definition of " employment office " so that it shall mean, " employment office operated by any Provincial Government or any other employment office approved by the minister." What he is doing at the present time is asking Parliament to give power to do the thing that the Governor in Council has taken upon itself to do without the authority of Parliament. The only justification he has for the amendment is to be found in the circumstance that the law as originally drafted did not give the Governor in Council power to do what it has been doing with public funds.


Arthur Meighen: I am so accustomed to being scolded by the leader of the Opposition that it really has very little effect on me now. I will make one more effort to render this clear to him; if I fail it will be on account of my limited powers of expression.
The present Bill is to enable the Gov-error in Council to pay moneys to municipalities; he could not do so under the old Act. I hope that is clear. Unless this Bill passes, the Governor in Council cannot use a municipality as formerly under the old Act he could use a province. Under the sections commencing with section 4 the minister could pay to a province half the cost of maintenance of employment offices maintained in the province; he could not pay that half to a municipality. Now then, it is clear that to attain the end desired there must be an amendment. But the leader of the Opposition said: "You went in before this amendment was passed and you paid moneys to municipalities." That I contradicted; I said we paid no moneys to any municipalities. Why does he say we did? The Order in Council-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: You paid money for employment offices that were 
conducted by municipalities, not by the provincial authorities.


Arthur Meighen: No. The Minister of Labour conducted them at the expense of the department. He was not allowed to do so unless the municipality supplied the office space and equipment. How would any money go to the municipality? Does the hon. member say that cheques were issued to the municipality? Employment offices were supported directly from the funds of the department. But I argue that it could be done under section 3, for the department there has power to aid and encourage organization. At all events whether that is so or not, the wording it seems to me is wide enough to cover it, and I apprehend that the minister, under the original Act constituting his department, has the power to establish employment offices and maintain them. I have not sent for the Act. But in any event he is acting here under Clause 3. The employment office that he maintains would necessarily from the context be his own employment office. In section 4 the wording is:
Employment office maintained by the province to the support of which he contributes by issuing cheques to the province.
But he never issued cheques to the municipality; he maintained the office. He did not commence to maintain it unless the municipalities supplied the space and the equipment.
I have just had drawn to my attention the Appropriation Act of last year, and in the appropriation to the Department of Labour of $367,500 the following item, No. 243, appears:
To supplement amount provided by statute 8 and 9, George V, Chapter 21, including $50,000 for the establishment and maintenance of employment offices in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the said Act.
In addition to the powers under the War Measures Act and under the War Appropriation Act, here is definite authority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What date is that?


Arthur Meighen: Last year's Estimates.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Expiring on the 31st March, 1920?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking about the Eeturn laid on the table for the year ending March 31, 1919.


Arthur Meighen: I presume the same clause would be found there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; that is just the whole point.


Arthur Meighen: There was further
power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, there was not.


Arthur Meighen: Well, the War Appropriation Act was in full force, as the hon. gentleman knows, and we also have the Estimates theTe. It certainly could be done under the authority of the War Appropriation Act, and I would be rather surprised if there was not a vote similar to the one I have quoted, in the Estimates of the year before.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was there any agreement between the provinces of Prince Edward Island, .Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and the Dominion in regard to employment offices in those provinces?
Mr .MEIGHEN: As to their establishment?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: I am not informed of any.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend will find there was none. But section 6 of the Act provides:
The payments hereinbefore authorized shall as to each province be conditional upon an agreement between the minister and the government of the province as to the terms, conditions and purposes within the meaning of this Act upon and for which the payments are to be made and applied, and upon such agreement being approved by the Governor in Council.
The point I am making is-there was no agreement between those provinces and the Dominion. This money could only be paid conditional upon that agreement existing, and since there w.as no such agreement the Governor in Council have used the moneys in an unauthorized way.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member is leader of the Opposition. No money was paid to the provinces because no agreement was made.
Mr. MACKENZIE, KING: That is aside from the point altogether. Money was paid out, and it could only be paid out conditional on an agreement between the provinces and the Dominion.


Arthur Meighen: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Arthur Meighen: I see the point of the leader of the Opposition. Although under Clause 3 of the present Bill as I propose to move that it be amended, it is provided that before any employment office is assisted under the Act it must be apparent that the province has not established such an office and that it does not intend to do so, I have no doubt that the Minister of Labour will not object to the restriction that the leader of the Opposition suggests. If the coanimitte is ready to accept it, I am willing that clause 1 be amended by substituting for the word " Minister " the words " Governor General in Council."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On section 2-powers of minister:
Arthur Meighen: Just in this connection I think it worth while to observe that I really think Parliament goes too far in demanding the approval of the Governor in Council in details. It results in the clogging of the work of the Cabinet as a whole, and is, I think, in the detriment of the public interest. It is not that any minister has objection, but the inclination of Parliament is, I think, to go too far, not realizing the tremendous volume of matter that necessarily now comes befoie the Governor in Council for approval. However, I am not saying that with any desire to restrict the tendency in relation to this. proposed Act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No member
of this House has a greater objection to Government by Order in Council than I have. I think that many matters should come before Parliament which are now dealt with by the Governor in Council. For the same reason I think that it is very wise to put some sort of check on or exercise some supervision over individual ministers by requiring the approval of the Governor in Council in regard to important matters. I agree that it should not be pushed too far, but when it comes to fixing penalities exceeding $100 and the like, it is very desirable that the Governor in Council should have a say as well as the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-allotment of moneys appropriated :
Arthur Meighen: When I read this section as it came from the Senate it seemed to me that it was not very well drafted; indeed, that it did not reach the end that

was sought. I had it re-drafted as follows, and move that this be substituted for clause 3:
3. Section five of the said Act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection :
(2) Notwithstanding anything in subsection one of this section the minister may in any year set aside from the moneys allotted to a province such sum as may seem desirable for the maintenance of employment offices, where none are operated by the Provincial Government, provided that, before any such employment office is assisted under this Act the minister shall be satisfied that the Provincial Government concerned does not propose to establish employment offices in accordance with this Act within a reasonable time, and provided further that the sum so set aside shall be allotted to such employment offices, but in no case shall the allotment exceed one half of the amount expended for the maintenance of such offices.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended 'agreed to.	.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in committee to consider the proposed organization of the staff of the House of Commons, as submitted to the House by His Honour the Speaker on the thirty-first day of March last, resumed from April 8, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When the committee
rose, the proposed organization as it affected the Journals branch of the House had not met with the approval of hon. members. Without wishing to withdrafw the reasons which I gave at that time as being, in my judgment, sound reasons for the adoption of the organization as then proposed, I feel that in respect to- a matter of this kind, which concerns the internal domestic arrangement and the proper working of the staff of the House of Commons, should be if not unanimous agreement more or less unanimity on the part of hon. members as to what the organization scheme ought to effect. For that reason I think, it might perhaps, be better to revert to the practice which obtained for some few years at least-prior to the present year, and divide the Journals branch into two sections. I therefore, move:
That clause 'Journals Branch' be amended as follows:	That the whole clause he stricken
out and the following be substituted therefor: Journals Branch.
(a) Chief of English Journals.
Assistant Chief of English Journals.
Four officials.
Sessional assistance as required.



192C

[Stage Direction]
(b) Chief of French Journals.
Assistant Chief of French Journals.
Sessional assistance as required.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Hansard Branch-Editor of Debates and Chief of Reporting Branch, Associate Editor of Debates and Reporter, nine Parliamentary reporters, one assistant Parliamentary reporter and senior reporter of Committees, three assistant Parliamentary reporters, sessional assistance as required.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In connection with this clause, without in any way altering the arrangement as proposed, but for the purpose of making this clearer, I move:
That the words "nine parliamentary reporters'' be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor:
'Seven parliamentary reporters (English).
Two parliamentary reporters (French).'


Mr. PROULX:: Has Mr. Desjardins, a
former reporter, been superannuated? The other day I saw in the Gazette an advertisement for a French reporter to replace Mr. Desjardins. I thought he had been replaced two years ago.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: , That refers to the retirement of Mr. Marceau, and not Mr. Desjardins.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
House Translation Branch-Chief of House Translation Branch:
(a)	law and bluebooks; assistant chief translator,-law; assistant chief translator

blue-books ; 17 officials.
(b)	Journals and Orders; assistant chief translator

journals and orders; one official, sessional assistance as required.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In connection with this clause, I move:
That the letter "a" in brackets in front of the word "law" in the second line, the letter "b" in brackets, and the following words be stricken out:
Journals and Orders.
Assistant chief translator.
Journals and orders.
One official.
and that the word "sixteen" be substituted for the word "seventeen."
This amendment arises in consequence of a motion passed in respect to the division of the Journals Branch, because it will be borne in mind that it was the intention, under the organization as originally submitted, that the French Journals should come under the House Translation Branch. The reason for the reduction from seventeen to sixteen is that I will subsequently propose an amendment which will enable
the transfer of one member of this staff to the Hansard Translation Staff.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Hansard Translation Branch-chief of Hansard translation branch, twelve officials, sessional assistance as required.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is felt desirable on
the part of hon. members representing a number of constituencies in Quebec that the words "Parliamentary Translators" should be used instead of the words "twelve officials." It is also felt that in order better to take care of the translation work of the Hansard branch, one more official should be available, not only to do the work from day to day, but to take the place of men who, from time to time may be ill during the stress of work of the session. I therefore move:
That the words "twelve officials" be stricken out and the following be substituted therefor: "thirteen .parliamentary translators."
I might point out to the committee that this will not involve any additional expense to the public treasury inasmuch as it is proposed to transfer one man from the House translation branch to the Hansard translation branch. It will be borne in mind in that connection that the work of the House translation branch has been very much reduced in recent years owing to the great reduction in the size of the blue-books and other Parliamentary documents which are translated.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand that this man who is now translating various documents of the House during the session will be employed by Hansard?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He will be transferred
and become a member of the Hansard translation branch.


Jacques Bureau: And receive the same
privileges and salary as the other House translators do?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Miscellaneous Branch-(a) accountant's division: accountant and chlief of branch, assistant accountant;	(b) postal division, postmaster,
assistant postmaster, one official, (c) stationery division: chief of stationery division, one official, (d) stenographic service division: chief of stenographic service division, such stenographic and clerical staff as required each session, (e) reading' room division; curator of reading room, asdsitant curator of reading room, sessional assistance as required.
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one amendment that I desire to'move here, and that is that at the bottom of page 109 I should like the words "one official" to be altered to two officials." The reason for that is this, that there was attached to the staff of the post office, under an Act passed some two years ago, an old official of the House who for many years faithfully served the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was transferred to that branch of the House, but in the list of officials in the proposed scheme of reclassification, provision was not made for his being allocated to that branch of the service. I, therefore, move:
That the words "one official" be stricken out and the words "two officials'' be substituted therefor.
This involves no increased expense and no new appointment; it makes regular an appointment which already existed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Organization of the Department of the Ser-jeant-ait-iArms, House of Commons-the Serjeant-at-Arms, Deupty Serjeant-at-Arms-filled by an official of the (House during session in addition to his other duties; secretary to the Serjeant-at-Arms, chief messenger and housekeeper, assistant to chief messenger and housekeeper, steward joint restaurant, joint restaurant staff as required^ two Parliamentary doorkeepers, sessional doorkeepers as required, chief page, seven confidential messengers, two Parliamentary messengers, two sesional bookkeepers, 38 sessional messengers, temporary sessional messengers as required, two foremen carpenters, three night watchmen, electrician (vacancy), supervisor of char service, Parliament Building; assistant supervision of char service; 15 permanent char women, or as required; temporary sessional char women as required, 20 sessional pages, or as required.; temporary sessional servants as required.
Jacques Bureau: I see that it states that the office of Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms is to be filled by an official of the House during sessions in addition to his other duties. Is he not a permanent official of the House, or do you take a man from amongst the 'officers of the House to fill this position?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: A few years ago there was a permanent official whoso sole duties were to act as Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms; but the position has been filled, I thin-k, to the satisfaction of the House, by the gentleman who has been the incumbent of the office for some time,-


Jacques Bureau: I am not criticising; I am simply asking if this is the same man.


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: There is no change at all, but I may point out to the committee that the fact that this position is not made per-
manent means a very considerable saving to the public treasury with no loss to the efficiency of the service.


Jacques Bureau: Witt reference to the nomenclature of the organization, I find at the top of page 109 under the heading "Officers of the House"; Clerk of the House, Serjeant-at-Arms, Assistant Clerk, Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. Then on the next page there is the "Organization of the Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms, House of Commons," giving the whole list of officials. Has not the Clerk of the House also got a staff, Assistant Cleric, and so on? Are there not other departments besides the Department of the Sergeant-at-Arms?
Mr. SPEAKEE': There is absolutely no change here from the arrangement heretofore existing. The first group on the top of page 109 are the chief officers of the House. There has always been a Department of the Serjeant-at-Arms, under whom are the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms and the other officials mentioned on page 110.
Chief Messenger and Housekeeper:


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: I beg to move to insert the word "Parliamentary" after the word "Chief." The Serjeant-at-Arms has pointed out to me that the idea underlying this proposed amendment is to make our wording conform with that of the Senate's organization, which has already been approved by the Senate.


Mr. PEOULX:: I thought titles were abolished last year.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Assistant to Chief Messenger and Housekeeper.
Mr.   SPEAKEE@: I beg to move to amend this line to read "Assistant Chief Parliamentary Messenger."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Steward Joint (Restaurant.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that the restaurant is under the supervision and direction of a Joint Committee of the House and Senate. Are the conclusions arrived at by that committee -subject to revision, modification and approval by the House, or is the committee independent of control?


Mr.   SPEAKEE@: Without having gone into the matter, and without wishing to give a final opinion, it seems to me beyond question that the work of any committee of the House is subject to the approval of the House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not remember that any report from this committee has been submitted to the House for approval or rejection or modification. Has such a report been made?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have to resort to my memory. So far as I can recall, I do not think a report of the Parliamentary Restaurant Committee has at any time been submitted to the House.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I asked the question because some very important decisions have been reached by this committee, some of which, at all events, are not entirely satisfactory to some of the members of this House. I have often wondered what opportunity we might have for offering criticism and submitting proposed modifications of the conclusions reached by that committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the opportunity could be very easily afforded by having a report of the committee submitted to the House, and then there could be a discussion on a motion for concurrence in the report. I do not think there would be any difficulty in having that done. I should point out that while nominally the Restaurant 'Committee ought to be presided over by the Speaker, I found that in practice it did not work out very well. It might not be amiss for me to say that while some two years ago I did endeavour to act as chairman of the committee, sometimes when I was perhaps worried over some constitutional question or some matter of emergency in the House, I would be approached by a member complaining of the quality of the butter or the age of the meat being served. I found it impossible for me to give proper attention to the work of that committee, and I. therefore asked that an-1 other member be appointed chairman, and for the last year and a half I have not been present at any of the meetings of the committee, and I have not been cognizant of or had anything to do with its workings. It is a matter which should ibe peculiarly in the hands of the members of the House itself. I mention this merely by way of explanation, .so that hon. members will realize that I have no accurate or intimate knowledge of the detailed workings of the committee.


Jacques Bureau: Do I understand from the statement made by Mr. Speaker that an opportunity will be given to discuss the conclusions arrived at by the Restaurant Committee? As my hon. friend .(Mr. Be-land) has said, there is a lot of dissatis-197
faction, not so much as to the food, but as to the rulings of the committee and the exclusiveness which is being attached to the restaurant. I should like to have an opportunity of voicing my views on this subject in the House. If a report from the committee is not submitted, I intend to bring the matter up on a motion for Supply.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think hon. members will have ample opportunity to discuss the matter fully, because not only is there an item in the Supplementary Estimates for the Parliamentary restaurant, but if it is thought advisable, a report could be submitted by the committee, and a motion made for its adoption would afford a like opportunity.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I think it would be preferable that we should have the report as soon as possible because the Supplementary Estimates may be submitted for consideration during the very last hours of the session.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I shall direct the attention of the chairman of the committee to the discussion here to-day and to the desirability of having a report ready to be submitted to the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the chairman?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Steele).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Money has to be voted for the Parliamentary restaurant at some stage or another. Which minister has charge of that vote?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It has been the practice for the leader of the House to take charge of the Estimates for the restaurant.


Jacques Bureau: Then we must hold him responsible for the conduct of this committee.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It does seem to me
highly desirable that the members of the committee ought to be responsible for the administration of the affairs of the restaurant, subject, of course, to the approval of the House. It is a matter peculiarly concerning the domestic housekeeping of the House of Commons itself and it is one which ought to remain, within the hands of the House and of hon. members. It does not properly belong to any department of the Government.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite agree with what the Speaker says but so far we have had no procedure of this House by which we have



recognized the chairman of any committee. The committee reports to somebody and if the report is made it falls under the direction and control of some department of the Government. While it is well to have a committee responsible to the House it would be a matter of convenience and of better procedure if that committee were regarded as being under the supervision of some minister so that we would have the report presented to the House in the regular way.


Jacques Bureau: The House should control it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be better to have the report presented by a minister or the Speaker, and make the procedure a permanent part of the machinery of the House. It is not like the ordinary reports of committees. This restaurant is likely to continue to be a part of the equipment of t/he jHouse of Commons. It might be well to understand that it comes under the control of some minister. I have a recollection that when Dr. Pugsley was Minister of Public Works he used to exercise some control over the restaurant as being a part of the Public Works connected with the building. I am not very strong on that point but I think we used to look to the Minister of Public Works as the man who had control of the Public Works and consequently control of the restaurant. I aim not sure but that is my recollection.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think the recollection of the hon. gentleman is hardly accurate on that point. One of the things that Parliament has always been more or less sensitive about is that the control of this building shall rest entirely with itself. The committee dealing with this matter is a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, .the same as the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Printing. As a matter of policy, and in order to procure the best ser-,vice, it does seem to me that it would be wise for hon. members to take a keen and active interest in the welfare of the eom-miittee and in the proper operation of the restaurant. It could not only be a comfort to members of the House .and of the Senate if properly carried on, but it could go a very .long distance towards making it convenient for hon. members to remain on duty in the House for many, and long hours and sometimes very late hours.
, Mr. McMASTER: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: One of my purposes in not remaining as chairman of the committee was that hon. members should feel the

responsibility resting upon themselves to 'try and have the restaurant more efficiently conducted.


Jacques Bureau: I would suggest that the report made by the committee should be submitted to the House before it is finally acted upon, posted up, and becomes law. If that were done there would not he so much dissatisfaction. The restaurant of the House of Commons ought to be a credit to the country and if it costs a few dollars more let members put up the price and give them a chance to fill up if they feel like it. It is not a question of economising or saving a few dollars. We are going to have a fine large room, the view is superb, but what is the use of bringing a stranger there if they are going to give him something that he cannot eat.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Let us pay for the scenery.


Jacques Bureau: Let us .pay for something that we can put inside of us. If we are going to use it as a smoking room, well and good but if it is going to be so that no hotel table in Canada can equal that of the Parliamentary restaurant then let them charge for it and let us pay.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I think that perhaps we may have the machinery and the working of the restaurant perfected by another session. The	proposal	of	the	hon.	gentleman that there should be an amendment	of the	rules of	the	House
which would call for a report of the committee on the restaurant being submitted at a certain stage of the proceedings of the House in order that hoa. members might discuss it properly is worthy of consideration.


Jacques Bureau: Let us have the amendment.


Edmond Proulx: I do not share the opinion of my hon. friend from Three Rivers. If prices are increased it will be another reason for members to advance for asking for an increased indemnity. I think it would be cheaper for the country to keep to the present indemnity and not increase the prices in the restaurant.


Jacques Bureau: I am glad I do not share your opinion. I am proud of it. If you think that the indemnity is enough for you then you are welcome to it. It is not enough for me.


Edmond Proulx: I do not want to discuss at any greater length the question of whether at any greater length the question of

whether the indemnity is enough or not but if we are imposing ne>w taxes on the country we ehould practise what we preach


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jacques Bureau: We are discussing the restaurant.
Item concurred in.
Two parliamentary doorkeepers.


Jacques Bureau: Provided these messengers let the members of the press into the hall, I am for them; otherwise we do not want them.
Item concurred in.
7 confidential messengers.


Jacques Bureau: Whose messengers are these and what do they do?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the word "seven" be struck out and the word "four" substituted. These messengers are attached to the offices of the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and the Clerk of the House.
Mr. BUREAUWhat about us? Surely there ought to he one for No. 16 and one for the room of the Opposition.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the use of the word "confidential" imply that if they are not confidential messengers you cannot have any confidence in them? I think the word "confidential" is rather undignified. It has a strange look.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am informed by the Sergeant at Arms that this word is used in consequence of the verbiage employed by the Civil Service Commission in their classification.


Mr. VIEN:: What is the number of confidential messengers now employed?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are none now but the messengers at present attached to the officers (whom I have named, and the proposed wording is simply to conform to the classification adopted by the Civil Service Commission.


William Stevens Fielding: Is the object to give them a higher salary iby attaching the word "confidential" to them? I have great respect for the Civil Service Commission but I think that they, like all others, should be obliged to give a reason for the faith that is in them. I cannot see any reason why one messenger should be called confidential and another not.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It gives them higher pay. It applies if they are in a class where they 197i
would receive a larger remuneration than the ordinary messenger.


Thomas Vien: The number is reduced to four now, are you going to dismiss three other employees?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There are no others. This is a skeleton organization to fit in with the Civil Service classification.
IMr. BUREAU: May I ask what is the difference between a confidential messenger, a parliamentary messenger, and a sessional messenger?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have already explained that, for example, a confidential messenger is provided for the Prime Minister, and he remains attached to that office.


Jacques Bureau: And that man gets $200 more?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, $200 more.


Jacques Bureau: What do the parliamentary messengers get?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: They perform the same duties that parliamentary messengers have performed since Confederation.


Jacques Bureau: There are only two of them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I propose to move an amendment that the number be increased to seven.


Jacques Bureau: There are 38 sessional
messengers.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The number has been precisely the same ever since Confederation. There is no change whatsoever in that regard.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to restrict the appointment of any messengers that may be necessary, but the Prime Minister for example, has his own messenger in his own department (and so has each of the ministers) who is a "confidential" messenger, although I do not like the use of the term. However, I do not object to: the number of messengers employed if the Speaker considers they are necessary.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am not in love with the phraseology employed, but doubtless it has to do with the nature of their employment. Ever since Confederation it has been the custom to allocate a confidential messenger to the leader of the Government, the leader of the Opposition, the Speaker, and the Clerk. In the case of the Prime Minister there probably also is a messenger

in his department; but it has never been the practice for the departmental messenger to come and do duty in the House of Commons as well. There are good reasons for that as hon. gentlemen can well see. While the Prime Minister is at the House his office in the department must be left open and various duties there necessitate the attendance of a messenger.


Mr. McMASTER:: I wish to make a suggestion although it may not be perfectly in order. Some of the pages have not been in bed at all to-day, and therefore the Speaker or the Serjeant-at-Arms should direct that they be sent home. Temporarily, in t-heir absence, we can minister to our own necessities.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Serjeant-at-Arms informs me that the younger pages .are sent home not later than 9.30 o'clock each evening. Last evening four of the older pages were on duty and to-day they had ample opportunity to rest.
* Mr. McMASTiER: The House adjourned this morning at half past six, and the pages had to report for duty before it reassembled. I think the little lads should be in bed. I say that as the father of a family.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I move that the number of two be changed to seven in accordance with the explanation I gave a short time ago.
)Mr. ANDERSON: I would like to know what action is being taken in connection with the messengers in the restaurant.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This service is under the Serjeant-at-Arms and has nothing whatever to do with the restaurant.


Mr. ANDERSON:: May I ask why the
number of messengers should be increased from two to seven?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: "Two" was a clerical error. Provision was originally made for seven confidential messengers and it is now reduced to four.



ELECTRICIAN (VACANCY).

Jacques Bureau: Who is to fill that
vacancy?
.Mr. SPEAKER: The Serjeant-at-Arms informs me that it may nett, be necessary to fill this vacancy. In view of the complicated nature of the electrical equipment of the House it is considered that it may be better ot continue its operation in the hands of the expert who is already in

charge. The position may therefore remain vacant unless some occasion arises for filling it.



SUPERVISOR OF CHAR SERVICE-PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

Jacques Bureau: Is this position held by a lady?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, it is held by a man, Mr. Letourneau.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I do not know whether I am in order-I think I am in this case- but in connection with the pages, ever since I entered the House I have not liked the spectacle which is always presented as the evening grows late, of little boys being on duty who certainly should be in bed. I do not know whether the Serjeant-at-Arms, or whoever is responsible, sees that the pages get their schooling properly, but I do not think that they should be on duty after ten o'clock. It is not proper for a country which has enacted factory legislation forbidding night work to juveniles, to have juveniles doing night work in our principal legislative hall, and I would like to express the view that no boys under sixteen at least should be on duty after ten o'clock at night. During the earlier hours we can avail ourselves of the services of the pages, which we highly appreciate, but after ten o'clock at night we could deliver our own notes and do for ourselves whatever else we require. I would strongly impress my own personal view-and I would imagine the view of most members of the House if they ever thought about it-that it is very unfitting to have little lads of sixteen and under working until midnight, and even later, and then going home in the dark. It cannot be a good thing for the boys themselves, and I am strongly of the opinion that the internal economy of this House should be so arranged that no children of sixteen and under would be on duty after ten o'clock at night.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no fault to find with the remarks of the hon. member except that it involves laying hands upon a time-honoured institution more or less reverenced, and there is always some good reason why a system which has [DOT] been in vogue for over fifty years should continue. It is true that on occasions, when the House sits late at night there is, perhaps, hardship for the pages, or at least a few of them. But this matter was gone over verv carefully some two years ago by Dr. Putman, Supervisor of Schools in the city, who had some such idea as has been expressed by the hon. member, and after the most care-

ful investigation he was satisfied that the system was as good as it could possibly be in the interests of the boys themselves, bearing in mind that all the younger boys leave at half-past nine.


Andrew Ross McMaster: What is the maximum age?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Sixteen years. Perhaps it might be worth while to point out to hon. gentlemen that these boys have an excellent opportunity to grow up in the public service, and, indeed, many of them have reached the highest positions in the service. One of the highest officials of this House, a gentleman very much respected by all the members as (well as by his 'brother officers, started as a page 'boy; I refer to the Acting Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms. Another gentleman although comparatively young is to-day in receipt of a salary of $25,000 a year from a large industrial corporation, and he started as a page boy. The Minister of Justice informs me that another of our former page boys is now a bishop. It might perhaps be better to change the system and to engage men of mature years. I may say quite frankly that while the boys on the whole behave themselves remarkably well, etill they are young and have the characteristics of youth, and it is not always easy for the officials of the House to get the very best service from them. But after all this is purely a question of policy for the House to determine, and so far as I am concerned I 6ball be only too happy to carry into effect any change which the House in its wisdom may deem to be desirable.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the ground that we should not employ page boys; what I want is to give them a chance to go to bed earlier.


Mr. ROBB:: What about the girls in the gallery?
Mr. MoMASTER: They are there by choice, and they are rewarded Iby listening to the eloquence of the hon. member for Huntingdon and other hon. gentlemen. I would draw the Speaker's attention to the fact that the argument that this is a time-honoured institution is not a very strong one, because 50 or 60 years ago the public looked upon child labour with a far more indulgent eye than it is regarded to-day. I am very glad to learn that the Inspector of Schools is satisfied that the boys' education does not suffer through the service which they render to this House, and I can quite understand that for a bright lad
work in this House may have a very considerable educational value. But the point I iwas endeavouring to make is one which I think will recommend itself to every hon. member,-that these (boys of 12, 13, 14 and 15 year of age should be in their beds by ten o'clock at night. It is true the younger boys get arsvay at half-past nine, which is quite proper, but very often a boy of 15, large perhaps for his age, requires just as much sleep as a boy of 12 or 13. I know the sight of these boys here late at night struck me as improper when I first became a member of this House. But we get used to these things and after a time they cease to have any effect upon us -"we first condole, then pity, then embrace." But I think the ground I take is sound, and that most members of this House, if these little fellows were their own sons, would not wish to see them out of their 'beds after ten o'clock at night.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: There is one way of finding out whether our system can be improved, and I intend to instruct the Serjeant-at-Arms to have all the page boys retire at ten o'clock each night until such time as the arrangement does not work satisfactorily to hon. members.
Resolution reported as amended, and read the first time.
On motion of Right Hon. Mr. Doherty for the second reading:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the motion is put, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that last night the right hon. the Prime Minister made no reference whatever to the subject under consideration in stating the order of business for to-day. I do not wish to in any way delay concurrence, but if there be some hon. member not now present who might wish to ask questions on the resolution I think he should not he denied that privilege.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He would be able to do so on the Estimates.
Motion agreed to and resolution read the second time.
CANADA SHIPPING ACT (Sick and Distressed Mariners) AMENDMENT.
On motion of Hon. N. W. Rowell that Bill No. 127 to amend the Canada Shipping Act (Sick and Distressed Mariners) be read a second time:


Mr. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to again have to bring to the attention of the minister in

For 1918-19 there was a loss, on account of the influenza epidemic, of $6,009. I am told that last year there was a surplus of $8,000, so that these figures are substantially correct down to the present time. In other words, we have a surplus under the present rate of taxation of about $300,000.
The minister stated to the House that I was inaccurate in the statement I made the other day referring to these figures, and pointed out that the cost of administration had not been deducted. Well, I find that the administrative staff consists of a gentleman named Doctor Godin-I do not know the gentleman-who has a stenographer and one clerk. These three officials, who administer the fund in Ottawa, have been transferred to the Health Department. It is not reasonable to assume that this small staff, which has successfully administered the fund up to the present time, should absord the whole of this $300,000 surplus. The point I am making is simply this, and I think the House ought to take cognizance of it: that the li cent tonnage tax has -been ample in every year except one or two odd years-certainly it has been ample over the whole period-to cover the administration of this fund from Confederation down to the present time. Therefore, Sir, I protest against this measure providing for an increase of funds as being absolutely unnecessary and uncalled for.
My second objection to it is that we are creating in a new department a new branch. You, -Mr. -Speaker, have seen as I have

that when a new branch is started almost the first thing done ie to increase the number of officials and extend the expenditures. 'What we are going to do is, without question, to increase the expeditures in connection with the administration of this fund; that, I say, is unnecessary and undesirable.
Now, I wish to turn to another phase of the question, and this, I think, is the most significant point of all; apparently it has not been within the knowledge of the minister. I want to ask the minister not to argue this point away, because it is an important one. I ask him to let this matter etand over for another year until he has had an opportunity of really acquainting himself with the business aspect of it, the shipping side of the question, not merely the administrative side, because I have shown that that is a very simple matter. Now, the other phase to which I wish to refer is this: the effect of this tax in the past as 1J cents has been to work against the interests of our shipping, and if it is increased to 2 cents the situation is aggravated. I go so far, Mr. 'Speaker, as to ask the Government to consider the advisability of entirely withdrawing the tax and handling the sick mariners on the same basis as they are handled in Great Britain. But I wish to direct the attention of the House to the effect of this tax on the cost of shipping. It not only means a direct charge of li cents- two cents, if the amount is now increased-but it means a retaliatory charge on the part of, say, the United States. In this connection I wish to place on Hansard very briefly a statement showing how that works out, because the matter is a very important one as affecting the cost of our shipping:
The United States law provides that upon satisfactory proof being given to the President by any Government of any foreign country, that no discriminating duties of tonnage or imposts are imposed or levied in the ports of such nation upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States, the President may issue a proclamation declaring that the foreign discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the United States are suspended and discontinued, so far as respects the vessels of such foreign nation.
Now, this refers to a tax of 6 cents a ton imposed by the American Government against our shipping and against the shipping of other countries which impose similar charges. So that our shipping is compelled not only to pay li cents, or the proposed 2 cents, but also 6 cents when they go into American ports.
To cairy the point on a little further, I anticipate the reply from the minister that
this law is not applied to the whole of Canada by saying that I admit that. I want to give a list of the countries the shipping of which is now exempt upon entering American ports and to show that we too can be exempt if we remove this particular impost or tax, because it was the cause of the application of the 6 cents tonnage tax by the United (States against Canadian shipping. The countries exempt in United States ports are the following:
Certain ports in the Dutch West Indies; Copenhagen; province of Ontario; Colon and Panama; Greytown and Bhco de Toro; Nicaragua; Montserrat, Gaudeloupe and Granada in the West Indies; Spain; Germany.
Here we have the peculiar situation that ships from one province in Canada, namely, Ontario, can go into ports in the United States free from this 6 cents tax, while shipping from other provinces, including Quebec, British Columbia, and the Maritime Provinces, must pay a 6 cent tax when entering American ports, simply because of this impost of li cents on account of sick mariners' dues. I protest, therefore, against this tax in that it is increasing the cost of shipping to Canadian producers.
I object to the principle of this proposal because it includes certain provinces and excludes others. I see no reason in the world why it should apply to some of the provinces and not to others. Certainly if the Government insist upon the principle they should apply it alike to all the provinces in which there is any shipping. 1 have already referred to the method employed by the British Government. The British Government, instead of imposing this tax, gives to ship owners, under the terms and provisions of the Merchants Shipping Act, certain instructions which they must carry out. I will read one or two by way of illustration and to make clear my point to which I shall proceed in a moment. Clause 82 otf the Merchants Shipping Act states:
The master should pay the expenses of removal, subsistence, medical advice and medicine until the seaman returns to the ship, or until the officer endorses the agreement with a certificate that he is fit or unable to proceed on the voyage.
It further states:
The officer will request hospital authorities to inform him within twenty-four hours of the admittance into hospital of any seaman from a British ship.
And so forth. There are many other clauses, all of which show that the Board

of Trade of Great Britain care for their mariners just as we 'look after the interest of mariners in this country, hut they look after them at the expense of the owners of the ships from which the mariners are taken. There is this matter which has escaped the attention of the minister and the Government. All these years we have been collecting this tax from all ships, including British ships which come into our ports, although there is a law whereby British ships are compelled to take care of their own crews. Referring now exclusively to British shipping, I say that this country is taking care of sailors of British ships although those sailors are already provided for by the Merchants Shipping Act under the control of the Board of Trade of Great Britain. That is another argument against the tax and a positive argument against an increase in the tax. I do not wish to delay the House; but for the reasons I have stated, I am going to ask the minister again, or as he is not listening very attentively to what I am saying, I will ask the Prime Minister (Sir Robert Borden), who is in his seat, if lie will give this matter serious 'consideration. Th'is is a serious matter as regards shipping generally; the increase in taxation will effect shipping considerably. The point I desire to make above all others is this, that the fee at the present time is more than adequate, and the increase in the fee will simply go into increasing useless machinery for handling and administering the matter. This matter cannot be overlooked and allowed to pass without strong protest. I presume it is regarded as a small matter by hon. members who do not thoroughly understand it; but the matter is of importance to shipping and shippers, because after all the cost of our ports reflects itself upon the imports and exports and upon those who are handling them. I wish to summarize my objections under these headings: first, it will increase the cost to shipping without a vestage of justification; second, since 'Confederation there has been a steady and substantial surplus making absolutely unnecessary any increase in the fee; third, it will increase the staff in Ottawa and the cost of administration; fourth, it is unfair, because it does not apply to all provinces alike, nor to all shipping; fifth, it permits of a particularly favourable treatment of ships coming from one province of Canada to ports of the United States, whereas ships coming from other provinces are discriminated against to the 
extent of six cents a ton. For that reason, I am going to ask the minister if he will stay this Bill for a time and give it further consideration. 'It will do no harm if he lets it rest for a year. I would suggest that he advise himself fully by consultation with the various boards of trade and shipping interests of the country as to its effect, and then if he still thinks it is necessary, he can let it go through the House and to a special committee in a manner similar to that an which we treat railway Bills and other Bills of importance to business concerns.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Before the minister exercises his right of reply, I wish to' direct the attention of other hon. members to the circumstance that if he does so, the debate will be closed.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The matters raised by
my hon. friend were discussed at some length when the Resolution upon which this Bill is founded was in committee. On. that occasion my hon. friend1 brought these matters to the attention of the House, and I have since had an opportunity of looking into the principal points that he has raised by way of supplementing the investigation I made before. Let .me deal in order with the points raised by my hon. friend. In the first place he says that this Bill creates a new branch of the Department of Health. My hon. friend is quite incorrect in that;, no such object is in view, and under the legislation of last session the administration of this branch is now in the Department of Health. We do not contemplate adding a single person to the staff or adding a dollar to the cost of 'administration. When my hon. friend says that the result of the increased rate will go- into the cost of administration, he is wholly misinformed, and I want to say very frankly to my hon. friend that there is no justification for such a statement being made. For a considerable period the rate was two cents a ton; some few years ago it was reduced to one and one-half cents a ton in the (hope that the work could be carried on at that figure. What I stated to my hon. friend when the matter was before the committee on a previous occasion was quite correct. I said that the cost of administration did not appear in that account, nor the cost of the hospital buildings. At that time I thought that was the case and I have since found that it was. I do not think money contributed for that fund

should be used for other purposes, but if you charge up the cost of the building of the hospitals erected plus the cost of the administration, I am advised by the officials of the department that the amount to which my hon. friend has referred will be more than absorbed, because this covers a period of over fifty years. That being the case, this is a question not of increased cost of administration, but of increased cost of hospital treatment. We have to pay increased rates in hospitals throughout the country.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What are the additional charges which are not included in this report? What is the amount?


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Does not my hon. friend know that the American Government imposed this tax of 6 cents against Canadian vessels because of this particular tax?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I believe my hon. friend is right that the American Government has imposed it. It is a matter which I am having the Department of Justice look into, and if the view which I entertain is con- [DOT] firmed that there is no just ground fox its imposition, then we will make representations to the American Government. But this is not a new thing. As a matter of fact I turned up the record, -and I find by memoranda on file in the department that as far back as 1891 ship-owners of Canada were opposing this tax on the very same grounds as my hon. friend has set out to-day. But what I point out is that it makes -absolutely no difference, so far as the operation of the American law is concerned, whether this tax is 11 cents or 2 cents. It is the fact of its existence at all that makes the United States impose their tax against our shipping. The whole question -is, shall we impose on the country part of the financial obligation for caring for these sick mariners? The policy in the past has been to ask ship-owners to provide for the care of their own sick. That is the policy embodied in the Bill. The Government has considered it, and it thinks the Bill should go through.
.Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Bodvin -in the Chair.
On section 383-duty on all vessels arriving at certain ports.


Mr. CROWE:: Why is the province of Ontario exempted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: In this respect the Act is the same as it has been ever since 'Confederation. I have inquired with the view of ascertaining, so far as there appears to be any record, why Ontario has always been left out, and the reason that I have been given is that Ontario navigation is inland- lake navigation. This legislation so far has only been applied to ocean navigation.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: Does the minister think
that seamen on the lakes do not get sick as well as seamen on the ocean?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is true. I am willing to say that there may be an argument made for their inclusion, yet I doubt whether it is wise for us to change the law which has been in force since Confederation. Another reason given is that vessels plying on the lakes are usually near the home port or town of these seamen, who may be returned home in case of illness. I quite agree that that would not cover all cases, but those are the grounds which for fifty years have apparently influenced the policy of all governments in not bringing Ontario under the legislation.


Sanford Johnston Crowe: You could use the same
argument as to vessels being near the home ports of the seamen in the ease of vessels plying up and down the coast, which have to pay this tax.


Newton Wesley Rowell: There is one slight amendment I wish to make to this section. Subclause (4) says that "such duty shall be payable on each ship three times duiing each calendar year,' but it does not specify on what occasions the duty shall be paid. To make the matter more clear and to avoid confusion I beg tom ove to insert after the word "ship" in the first line of subclause (4) the following words: "each time she arrives in any such port, but in no case shall it be oftener than."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I wish to say one or two words in reply to the minister, who in his explanation of the necessity for the increase of the tonnage due to 2 cents a ton, did not treat my argument quite fairly. I was not arguing that the American tax was imposed because of the 2 cent tonnage due here, and the minister knows I was not. I separated my argument. I knew perfectly well that the six cents a ton tax was applied whether we had a li cents or a 2 cents tax here, and it was quite unnecessary of

the minister to enlighten me on that point. I was objecting to the increase to two cents asked for when there is no necessity for it. The minister told us that there was an administrative staff in Ottawa and that there were certain expenditures on hospitals. The same ground was traversed a few weeks ago and the minister was unable to give us any information as to the amount of these administration and hospital charges. My information is that the total charge included in these figures is for a certain gentleman by the name of Dr. Godin, a stenographer and one clerk. I am satisfied after an investigation that Dr. Godin's services are quite unnecessary because you do not need a medical man in charge of the work which can easily be done by any ordinary clerk. The medical work in the administration of this department is done in all quarters of this country by the hospitals and doctors there. Although Dr. Godin's services are retained as a medical man you will not use a medical man once in a season and probably not once in ten seasons. I am not saying this with any desire to embarass the minister but I am quite sure that the minister was not alive to all the facts when the matter was first broached. This administration is such that it could very well be put in charge of a clerk and a stenographer. This year I am informed we have had an $8,000 surplus and there is no occasion to increase this charge to two cents in order to cover the work of these officials. As my hon. friend has transferred this work to the Health Department he should leave the fee for another year at one and a half cents in order to see if it is necessary to increase the rate and then let the House know whether it is necessary. The minister rather implied that I was here taking a stand against the sick mariner and in the interest of the shipowner. He said that his intentions were to protect the sick mariner, to see that he was taken care of properly and he believed that the shipowners could very well afford to pay for at. I had no objection, nor have I now, to that position. My position is this: First, do not disturb these fees at all or, second, do not charge this fee but make shipping responsible for the care of the individual sailors just the same as the board of trade of Great Britain makes the shipping of Great Britain responsible. Under the laws of Great Britain British ships coming into Canada are obliged to care for their sick mariners. We are simply covering the same ground in so far as British shipping is concerned. I rather re-

31C5
sented the minister's suggestion that I am here pleading for the rich shipowners because that is not my position at all. My position is that the fee should not be changed and that in the next place these same rich shipowners should be compelled to look after their own sick sailors under proper Government regulations and provision. If that were done I submit that it would be possible not to increase this fee this year. Let the matter stand for another year.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Possibly my hon. friend (Mr. Stevens) is not aware of the fact that under a contract which we have with British Columbia we are bound to maintain marine hospitals, and we cannot be released from the arrangement which requires us to make provision with existing British Columbia hospitals for the care of sick seamen. The Government has concluded an agreement with the Government of British Columbia to make such provision and therefore it is not a case where we could turn over to the shipping companies the obligation to which my hon. friend has referred. I do not see how the companies could seriously suffer from this legislation. It does increase to some extent the dues. The charges would be increased on all the ships by approximately $15,000 a year according to the Estimates I have. I cannot see how $15,000 would seriously prejudice the shipping coming into our ports from all nations. It does not seem to me that it is such an additional charge as to seriously prejudice any shipping interests sailing into our Canadian ports. Our charges would not compare with those of any other ports and especially American ports. One complaint of my hon. friend is that the American Government takes advantage of this provision to impose a much higher tax on our ships going into United 'States ports.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is not the only
charge against shipping. It is only an incidental charge. There are other charges and many of them in different ports.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Is this one-half cent increase per ton due to the increased cost of living or of maintaining these sick sailors at the hospitals. With the increased cost of food, clothing, etc., the keeper of the hospitals cannot get a fair return on their investment. I understand that is what the minister tells the House. I would like to say also to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) that Dr. Godin is doing more than the work of a clerk because
he supervises the expenditures of the hospitals all over the country from time to time and that work, I fancy, requires a man of some experience. I want to know whether the increased cost is due to the increased cost of living-the cost of food, clothing and other materials necessary in the hospitals.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The increase is substantially as my hon. friend (Mr. Loggie) has suggested. We maintain four hospitals. (The cost of everything has gone up and therefore it costs us more to maintain these four hospitals than it did three or four years ago. Then we have agreements with about 35 hospitals in the parts of Canada where sick sailors come in. We have to renew our agreements at higher rates because the hospitals cannot afford to renew them at the old rates. I could give the rates which formerly prevailed and the present rates in all these hospitals. There is a very substantial increase in the charge. We cannot help it; we have to pay. Just one word in reference to Dr. Godin. He is the officer of the Government who must see that these four hospitals in different parts of Canada are properly administered and he must also see that the 35 other hospitals carry out their agreements for the care of sick sailors. That is an important office which he has filled foT a great many years and filled very acceptably.


William Stewart Loggie: I want to confirm what
the minister has said because we have one of these hospitals which has received assistance for half a century. The allowance was so small that the keeper had to put his grievance before the department. I am glad to say that they met his views to some extent but nevertheless the amount which he receives is still very small and, considering the increased cost of living, I do not know but what his case should receive even further consideration.
Bill reported, and amendments read the second time.
On the motion of the Hon. Mr. Rowell that the Bill be Tead a third time.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Bill can only be
read a third time now with the unanimous consent of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Sir Robert Borden Bill No. 151 to amend the Northwest Game Act was read a second time, considered in com-
[Stage Direction]
mittee, reported, read a third time and passed.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand
that it is the general wish of hon. members that we should not sit this evening. I therefore beg to move that the House do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
Friday, June 4, 1920.